(6/21/07) The Select Board met Monday, June 18th, at 6:15 p.m. in the Middle School music room, prior to Town Meeting. Gerry Weiss, Hwei-Ling Greeney, Rob Kusner, Anne Awad and Alisa Brewer were present, as was Town Manager Larry Shaffer.
No one spoke at this time.
Question: Tree Removal Procedure
Mr. Weiss asked for clarification about how to deal with challenges to tree removal decisions, and said that the Select Board had received two such petitions. Mr. Shaffer said the Tree Warden holds the first public hearing regarding tree removal, where the public offers comment and the tree warden renders a decision. He said that if someone is unhappy with that decision, they can appeal it to the Select Board.
Mr. Weiss sought and received confirmation that no hearing has yet been held for the trees outside of Jones Library, and inquired about the status of the cherry trees by Zanna. Mr. Shaffer said he didn't know the status of the cherry trees.
Mr. Kusner suggested that the procedure and the Tree Warden's decisions get posted somewhere, perhaps on a web site, so people are aware of them. Mr. Weiss said they needed to know if the removal of the cherry trees was an official decision “or just a Planning Board request,” and Mr. Shaffer said he would check.
Vince O'Connor said that Town departments and any entity dissatisfied with a removal decision have the same right of appeal. He also talked about a type of soil that he said helps to protect street trees and asked if the Select Board had “had the opportunity to give a firm directive to the DPW” that this soil should be used. Mr. Weiss said they would look into that once they knew the status of the cherry trees. Mr. Shaffer said that any street project involves many details, and that the Select Board couldn't devote the time to evaluating all of them. He said that he would advise that staff address such details instead. Mr. Kusner said that before Mr. Shaffer's tenure began, three of the Select Board members had been concerned about this soil issue, and that it had been discussed at a Select Board meeting.
Mr. Weiss said that Ms. Greeney had requested this agenda item. Ms. Greeney said she had three questions and a comment. She said she had heard that the projected amount for the Excess and Deficiency funds was $1.3 million, and asked if that was correct.
Elaine Brighty, Regional School Committee Chair, said that was a ballpark figure, but didn't represent the end-of-year amount, because she said more could be spent by then.
Ms. Greeney said that the Regional Agreement says that the maximum allowed in E&D funds is an amount not to exceed 3.5% of the operating and capital budgets,, and that anything higher than that is to be dispersed to the Towns through the current or following year's assessment. She asked if those details were correct. Ms. Brighty said that yes, they were.
Ms. Greeney said that the Schools' Finance Director, Paul Detweiler, had said at the June 5th Regional School Committee meeting that there were about $500,000 in unspent Regional funds, and she asked if that was correct.
School Superintendent Jere Hochman said that was a ballpark number, and that the final number would depend on what decisions were made by the end of the year. He said that they are closing out their budgets, and as they find unencumbered funds from any budget source, the goal is to spend that money to purchase things they need, and said that those funds were intended for the schools. He said they next look at the fixed and known costs for next year that they are allowed to expend funds for now, such as sick leave buyback, retirement and other categories, and he said that that frees up more money from next year to be spent on the students. He said the next step is making a recommendation for an amount to be put into the Schools' capital projects fund, which he said they call the “stabilization fund.” He said they can only put a certain amount into that capital fund for the future, and said that if the money is available, they want to put as much toward that fund as possible. He said that if there is still money remaining, the School Committee can choose to contribute to the E&D fund up to that 3.5% level. If money still remains at the end of that process, he said it must be returned to the towns.
Ms. Greeney said that considering the uncertainty between now and the end of the school year, and considering that $187,000 is the maximum that could be added to E&D, which she said would leave the schools with more than $300,000 in unspent funds, and considering that “very graciously, the elementary schools offered $120,000 to be given back” to the Town, she asked if the Regional School Committee might consider offering another $120,000.
Mr. Hochman said that Ms. Greeney was reversing the steps of the process. He said that the first step is to spend the money now on students and programs, and in ways that will free up money for next year. He said that the $300,000 she is talking about is money that will be spent for those purposes now. He said the other $200,000 is what is left for capital and E&D. He asked if it was correct that she was requesting that the Region make a conscious decision to earmark money for Amherst as the first step in the process. Ms. Greeney said she would leave that decision to the Superintendent. Mr. Hochman said that he understood her to mean that instead of spending that money, to use it to reduce the assessment. He said that was essentially the proposal he had brought to the Select Board a month ago, and that they had rejected it in a 2-2 vote. He said the Regional School Committee hadn't approved the idea at that time and that he had been shopping a proposal around that didn't go anywhere, he said, similar to Mr. Weiss' recent proposal that also did not advance. Mr. Hochman said that much had changed after he offered that original proposal, and that the School Committee had discussed whether there was any interest in reducing the assessment to 2%, and that there was not that interest.
Ms. Awad said she had found this helpful and that she appreciated learning more about school finances, and asked what E&D meant. She was told it stood for Excess and Deficiency. Ms. Awad asked about the setting up of a fund several years ago under the previous Superintendent, and asked if it was the E&D fund or the stabilization fund. Ms. Brighty said it was the stabilization fund, which hadn't previously existed, and was set up with a commitment of up to $300,000 per year to cover a large scale project like a Middle School renovation.
Ms. Brewer said that at the risk of offending her colleagues, she appreciated the desire to understand the school budget and said it was important to do so, but said she was concerned that this was occurring at a Select Board meeting on the basis of “curiosity.” She said they had spent 20 minutes on the subject when there was still much work to be done on their agenda, and that the questions they were asking could all be answered at School Committee meetings. She said that understanding all of the regional budget details is the Regional School Committee's job, not that of the Select Board, and said that she was concerned that whenever they might be curious about something that they would ask a committee to come to a Select Board meeting.
Mr. Weiss said he appreciated that sentiment, but because the Select Board is expected bring a balanced budget to Town Meeting, and because they have been chastised for not using the $100,000 General Government cut to fund the regional assessment, he said that they need to look at “the whole picture.” He said that requires that they understand the basic details, but that he doesn't want to spend a lot more time on this issue.
Mr. Kusner cited a sentence in section 7D of the Regional Agreement about the Region being required to consult with the Select Boards of each town regarding budget guidelines, and said that they do do that. He said he appreciates that there are many details to a large budget and that the Schools want to keep a cushion of money. He said that the Select Board worked hard to create a balanced budget and that Town Meeting had more or less agreed with that budget. He referred again to the section 7D passage, and said he wished for more transparency in the future, and said it was hard for the Select Board to follow the E&D and capital fund prioritizations, and said the Select Board had carefully set aside $100,000 to fund what it felt was important to help the Town and urged the Regional School Committee to do the same.
Mr. Hochman said he understands that the Select Board deserves information, but said he objected to idea that there hadn't been transparency. He said the Select Board had long ago been given the Schools' data packet and budget assumptions, which he said included some information about E&D funds, and said that he had spoken to the Select Boards of all four towns, and had attended many Amherst Select Board meetings, as well as other budget meetings. He said the process had been “extremely transparent,” and that he had given the Select Board information as it became available.
Mr. Kusner said he wasn't accusing them of not being transparent in the past, but that he was asking for more transparency in the future. He said he understood what the numbers meant and wanted the public and Town Meeting to understand them also. He said he would have preferred to have the numbers earlier.
Ms. Brighty said that the State had just provided reimbursements, that they were just reconciling the budgets now, and that not all bills had yet been received. She said that Town Finance Director John Musante is in the same situation, and would also be dealing with a lot of ballpark rather than exact figures as a result. She said the Select Board wants to know all that the School Committee knows, and suggested they attend School Committee meetings where all these details are shared. She said it felt as though Mr. Kusner was saying that they had not been transparent.
Ms. Awad said she reacted to Ms. Brewer's comment about “curiosity,” and said that her own interest was beyond that of curiosity. Ms. Awad said that she had learned more this year because she hadn't needed to know as much in the past, and that she wants to be informed and know how the different funds relate to each other so that she can help the process at Town Meeting.
Carol Gray asked about the current amount in the Region's capital fund, and asked if paying down some of next year's costs now would result in reducing the 3% assessment. Mr. Hochman said he didn't know the amount in the capital budget. Ms. Brighty said that paying down next year's costs frees up other funds, and that amounts are not rigidly assigned within the budget.
Article 11 – Subsidized Housing Inventory
Mr. Weiss said that all reports that they had been waiting for on this subject were now in. Vince O'Connor, the article's petitioner, said he had just received the Planning Board's report that evening. Mr. Weiss said he assumed that the article wouldn't be addressed at that night's Town Meeting because the report had only then been made available. Town Planning Director Jonathan Tucker said that Wednesday's Planning Board Meeting would conflict with Town Meeting, which would necessitate moving the article to Monday, June 25th, and said he hoped it could be dealt with that night (June 18th) instead.
Mr. Weiss summarized the issue before them as: is there a potential problem with Amherst's Chapter 40B status, and if so, is Article 11 a good way to address that problem?
Mr. O'Connor cited a May 9th memo from Mr. Tucker that said that by 2010 Amherst would have 10,500 housing units with 1,051 of them being classified as affordable. Mr. O'Connor said that given that is only one unit above the 10% margin, he disagreed with what he said was Mr. Tucker's conclusion that concerns about dropping below 10% were “misplaced.” Mr. O'Connor said that if the Town falls below 10% by even one unit, a 500-unit project could be proposed as long it meets the 25% requirement for affordability, and talked about the impact that could have on police and other Town services. He said that Mr. Tucker's memo says to focus instead on the affordability requirements expiring at existing complexes. Mr. O'Connor said that this was also important and that he had done that in the past with Puffton and Village Park, and that many options for protecting the 10% need to be pursued.
Mr. Weiss said he agreed that there is a problem and was concerned about the single unit buffer projected. He asked if the projected housing inventory includes the planned Veridian Village development. Mr. Tucker said it did not include the 120 units planned for Veridian Village, with none of them being affordable, and nor did it include the 27 units, all affordable, that are part of the HAP proposal that has just cleared the courts. Mr. Weiss noted that those numbers improve the 2010 projections, and Mr. O'Connor said they did so “slightly.”
Mr. Weiss asked how many units had been developed under the inclusionary zoning section of the bylaw that the article addresses. Mr. Tucker said the inclusionary zoning section is two years old and none had yet been developed. He said that a couple of projects had been applied for, and if they advance, might include affordable units. He cited Strawberry Fields as a project that could include moderate-income units, which someone noted are not countable under 40B. He said the Planning Board and Housing Partnership/Fair Housing Committee wanted to work together and with others to work on this issue and other zoning bylaw issues that would help encourage the private provision of affordable housing, and said the public provision will proceed on its own.
Mr. O'Connor said his article was designed partly in response to the Strawberry Fields conflict. He said that in the absence of standards in the bylaw regarding the determination of whether affordable units must meet the low- or moderate-income standards, he said that the developer, Scott Nielsen, argued one way, the Housing Partnership/Fair Housing Committee argued another, abutters argued another, and that the Planning Board got to choose among those, which he called “an intolerable situation.” He said they got to make a decision based on their own view of what was important, rather than having the decision be based on a carefully crafted bylaw. He said that that was giving too much latitude to a permitting authority.
Planning Board Member Rod Francis said that the inclusionary zoning bylaw is two years old and the fact that no inclusionary zoning units have yet been created speaks to the market demand by both consumers and developers. He said that Mr. O'Connor's article would further restrict inclusionary zoning to provide only one type of affordable housing units, putting the most constraint on development. He said that with no one responding to the zoning designation yet in two years, it would be ill-advised to make it more restrictive. He said that free-standing single-family homes are the primary development being sought locally. He said that two large development projects “are bogged down in some form of permit purgatory,” and said that developers have spent much money pursuing this and have nothing to show for it. He said those costs are borne by all consumers and get figured in to the home's purchase price, and that it would be irrational to make the process more restrictive. He said that some of the Planning Board members felt the article didn't have enough merit to be referred to them, while others felt it did, and one member felt the article should be approved.
Ms. Greeney said she appreciated Mr. O'Connor bringing the issue to the Board's attention, and that she was concerned about the threat of Amherst falling below the 10% threshold, but wanted more consideration of other options for addressing that. She moved to have the Select Board recommend that the article be referred to the Planning Board and brought back to next spring's Town Meeting.
Mr. Kusner asked if that was a reasonable time frame, and if it might be brought back in the fall. Mr. Tucker said he didn't think the fall would be possible, given the other work the Planning Board is pursuing for then, and that there were other issues to consider related to affordable housing regarding creating better incentives.
Nancy Gregg, Chair of the Housing Partnership/Fair Housing Committee said that that committee had voted 5-1 to oppose the article, and keep that section of the bylaw as-is. She said that more work is needed to encourage flexible housing options in the community. She said that the committee has worked well with the Planning Board in the past, and that she doubts they could work together to accomplish the desired work on this issue by the fall.
Mr. O'Connor said that applications requiring inclusionary zoning would be most likely to be received on compromised parcels, such as those with a lot of wetlands and only a small developable portion. He said that no one would act outside of their economic self interest to seek such a development application, and would only do so if the land configuration required it.
Mr. Kusner noted that such a parcel might not be well-located for affordable housing, such as not being near public transportation or employment opportunities. He said that such details would improve Mr. O'Connor's article.
Mr. Weiss asked if it was correct that Amherst's housing inventory numbers considered under 40B wouldn't be recalculated until the next census results are published in 2011. That was confirmed, and Mr. Francis noted the pending expirations of the affordability clauses at existing developments, and how that is part of the pressure on the 10%. He said a coherent policy response was needed and that collaboration with developers should be fostered and encouraged. Mr. Francis said that a town with a good budget situation was better positioned to deal with the issue of units falling out of affordability.
Mr. Weiss said that developers should be part of the conversation about what makes doing low-income affordability units more inviting for them to pursue. He said he had spoken with two developers and that they said they were already hesitant about considering an inclusionary zoning project.
Carol Gray said that she urged support for the article. She said that it made the developers with the greatest profit buffer shoulder the burden of the low-income units, as it would only apply to projects of 10-units or more. She said that the zoning bylaw needs to be protected and said that developers have a vested interest in the Town falling below 10%.
The vote to support the recommendation to refer the article to the Planning Board and Housing Partnership/Fair Housing Committee was 4 in favor, one opposed with Ms. Awad voting to oppose.
There was further discussion about when this article should be addressed at Town Meeting. Ms. Brewer said that Town Meeting might not achieve a quorum if it needs to reconvene on June 25th. Aaron Hayden, Planning Board Chair, said that the Planning Board would be unlikely to be able to send a representative to Wednesday's Town Meeting and still keep a quorum for their Planning Board meeting with its previously scheduled public hearing, because the committee has several vacancies.
Isaac BenEzra said that June is Hunger Awareness Month, and said that more than 100,000 citizens in Western Massachusetts communities suffer from hunger and food deprivation. He requested that any unanticipated or unspent funds be used to restore the budget cuts to social services. He spoke about how the social service agencies impact the schools because they help to feed children and families, and provide services that keep kids in school. He asked that the Select Board be aware of the local hunger situation and that they opt to put unanticipated funds toward the restoration of social services. Mr. Kusner suggested that an article to that effect might be created for the fall Town Meeting, to amend the FY08 budget. Mr. BenEzra said that the Select Board should do that rather than him. He said there is an obligation to fix the problem if money is available.
Article 32 – Amherst Redevelopment Authority
Fran VanTreese, Chair of the Amherst Redevelopment Authority, spoke of that body's role in developing the Center School Complex, the Bangs Center and Boltwood area, and said that project had been completed with the last transfer of land from the parking garage. She said that the group had voted not to disband three years ago, because they felt that the ARA was an important tool for the Town to have available, that it would be costly to disband and even more costly to re-form. She said no projects are on the ARA's books, and that the group has been “almost entirely dormant.” She said it would be a mistake to abolish it.
Mr. O'Connor said he wanted to restate his position on the matter – that he has no investment in whether the group is kept or not, but that he didn't want it to continue on the path it had been on. He said that if the Select Board supports the ARA, he wouldn't speak against that.
Mr. Kusner moved to dismiss Article 32, and it was seconded.
Ms. Awad said that Mr. O'Connor had done the Town a service by bringing the article forward. She said it had renewed attention to the questions of what the ARA is and what it does. She said it was helpful to know that it was a tool for the future, and that consciousness had been raised about the issues of how to use and maintain it, and how to get new members. She said she is comfortable dismissing the article but would want to revisit it in a couple of years if it proceeds as-is.
Ms. VanTreese said she would like to see the Master Plan process help to guide the ARA, and said its purview is very specific, and can't involve private sector development.
The Select Board voted unanimously to recommend dismissal of Article 32.
Mr. Weiss told Ms. VanTreese that the Select Board needs to be notified in writing of the ARA vacancy. She said that they hadn't been aware that the vacancy needed to be filled, and had discussed waiting until the next election, due to Mr. O'Connor's concerns about filling the seats with the write-in candidates, who at least had the potential for a town-wide vote, versus filling the seats through the votes of the nine individuals who would be part of the alternative election process.
At this point, the meeting hastily adjourned because Town Meeting was beginning.
The time of adjournment was 7:43 p.m. The next Select Board meeting was scheduled for 6:15 p.m. on Wednesday, June 20th, in the music room at the Middle School.
-- Stephanie O'Keeffe
